Climate Alarmism Acknowledges Doubt
The global-warming crowd admits the science isn’t “settled.”

Climate alarmists conjured a world where nothing was certain but death, taxes, and catastrophic global warming. They used this presumed scientific certainty as a bludgeon against the skeptics they deemed “deniers,” a word meant to have the noxious whiff of Holocaust denial.

All in the cause of hustling the world into a grand carbon-rationing scheme. Any questions about the evidence for the cataclysmic projections, any concerns about the costs and benefits, were trumped by that fearsome scientific “consensus,” which had “settled” the important questions.

A funny thing happened to this “consensus” on the way to its inevitable triumph, though. Its propagators have been forced to admit fallibility.

For the cause of genuine science, this is a small step forward; for the cause of climate alarmism, it’s a giant leap backward. The rush to “save the planet” cannot accommodate any doubt, or it loses the panicked momentum necessary for a retooling of modern economic life.

Phil Jones is the director of the Climate Research Unit at the University of East Anglia, a key “consensus” institution that has recently been caught up in an e-mail scandal revealing a mindset of global-warming advocacy rather than dispassionate inquiry. Asked by the BBC what it means when scientists say “the debate on climate change is over,” the keeper of the flame sounded chastened. “I don’t believe the vast majority of climate scientists think this,” Jones said. “This is not my view. There is still much that needs to be undertaken to reduce uncertainties, not just for the future, but for the . . . past as well.”

Jones discussed the highly contentious “medieval warming period.” If global temperatures were warmer than today back in 800–1300 A.D. — about a thousand years before Henry Ford’s assembly lines began spitting out automobiles — it suggests that natural factors have a large hand in climate change, a concession that climate alarmists are loath to make. Jones said we don’t know if the warming in this period was global in extent since paleoclimatic records are sketchy. If it was, and if temperatures were higher than now, “then obviously the late-20th-century warmth would not be unprecedented.”

Jones also noted that there hasn’t been statistically significant warming since 1995, although the cooling since 2002 hasn’t been statistically significant either.

All of this is like a cardinal of the Catholic Church saying the evidence for apostolic succession is still open to debate.

The other main organ of the climate “consensus” is the U.N.’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. It won the Nobel Peace Prize for its 2007 report, which turns out to have been so riddled with errors it could have been researched on Wikipedia. It said Himalayan glaciers would melt by 2035, warned that global warming could reduce crop yields in Africa by 50 percent by 2020, and linked warming to the increased economic cost of natural disasters — all nonsense.

These aren’t random errors. A former head of the IPCC, the British scientist Robert Watson, notes, “The mistakes all appear to have gone in the direction of making it seem like climate change is more serious by overstating the impact.”

Too many of the creators and guardians of the “consensus” desperately wanted to believe in it. As self-proclaimed defenders of science, they should have brushed up on their Enlightenment. “Doubt is not a pleasant mental state,” said Voltaire, “but certainty is a ridiculous one.” The latest revelations don’t disprove the warming of the 20th century or mean that carbon emissions played no role. But by highlighting the uncertainty of the paleoclimatic data and the models on which alarmism has been built, they constitute a shattering blow to the case for radical, immediate action.

In the Boston Globe, MIT climate scientist Kerry Emanuel marshals what will have to be the fall-back argument for fighting warming: “We do not have the luxury of waiting for scientific certainty, which will never come.” Really? That’s not what we were told even a few months ago — before climate alarmism acknowledged doubt.

— Rich Lowry is editor of National Review.

Oh and YES it IS a recent article.

ROTFLMAO

Can't hack the truth eh guys...  ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D

Quote:

Scientific understanding of the causes of climate change has progressed dramatically in the past few years. Natural internal variability is an inherent feature of the climate system, but it cannot account for the net gain of energy that has been detected within the climate system as a whole. Based on physical principles, the modern increase in the heat content of the global ocean demonstrates that positive external forcing of the climate is underway.

That was written in 2008. Again. It has always been acknowledged that some uncertainty remains in certain key areas - the biggest of which relate to aerosols and effects on Polar regions.

There are whole sections of the IPCC Reports in 1995, 2001 and 2007 which discuss the areas of uncertainty, however these are peripheral areas only and they don't affect the overall conclusion.

I don't think anybody is stating that Climate Research can stop now because we know absolutely everything. Of course we don't. Nobody has ever said that.

Of course most of these quotes are taken out of context as usual.

No it was like I said Muso.... RECENT.

February 16, 2010 12:00 A.M.
Climate Alarmism Acknowledges Doubt
The global-warming crowd admits the science isn’t “settled.”

http://article.nationalreview.com/425098/climate-alarmism-acknowledges-doubt/rich-lowry

Oh dear...  wrong again.  ;D ;D ;D

Beo, which quote do you think Muso was referring to? Do you understand how pronouns work?

Pay more attention in future.

I always pay attention.

I think he was referring to my saying the article was recent.



Quote:

Oh and YES it IS a recent article.

otherwise I'd have to say he was avoiding the article yet again by cherry picking bits of it and making useless out of context comments as usual.

I expect he was referring to the quote he posted immediately above, which addresses the denial stratgey, sadly still in use, two years later.

hard to say...
the first would be wrong (as i showed) and the second irrelevant.

Neither of which is the point. The point is that this is wrong:


Grendel wrote on Apr 15^th, 2010 at 7:02pm:

Oh dear...  wrong again.  ;D ;D ;D

Grow up.

"Grow up"   you mean like by not replying to something not addressed to me?   ::) ::) ::)

Grendel wrote on Apr 14^th, 2010 at 3:11pm:

“We do not have the luxury of waiting for scientific certainty, which will never come.” Really? That’s not what we were told even a few months ago — before climate alarmism acknowledged doubt. — Rich Lowry is editor of National Review.

I think it was things like that I was addressing. The quote I included was from a paper published in 2008.

I was making the point that nobody is claiming total certainty is all aspects of Climate science, and nobody is saying that we should stop doing climate research because we know everything.

However in something so basic as "have anthropogenic greenhouse gases been the main cause of Global Warming in the last 50 odd years?",  there is almost complete consensus among those qualified to comment.

Now do you understand?

Paella - Not to be accused of bias - Your contributions are welcome, but let's try to concentrate on the arguments - not the person.

Let's all keep personal insults out of it and keep it civil. (I know it's difficult)

Lol

According to you Muso fallability lies on only one side of the argument...  that is hardly an unbiased or skeptical mindset.  Something I would have thought was important for a scientist to maintain.

Thanks for the clarification...   :)

But I think you will find that denial has been something your side of the debate has been cloaked in for many years and even though they understand that their theory is UNCERTAIN, that is not how they present it.  You certainly do not...

Grendel wrote on Apr 16^th, 2010 at 12:01pm:

Lol According to you Muso fallability lies on only one side of the argument...  that is hardly an unbiased or skeptical mindset.  Something I would have thought was important for a scientist to maintain. Thanks for the clarification...   :) But I think you will find that denial has been something your side of the debate has been cloaked in for many years and even though they understand that their theory is UNCERTAIN, that is not how they present it.  You certainly do not...

First of all, I acknowledge your thanks.

Do you think you should maintain an open mind about these people too?

http://www.alaska.net/~clund/e_djublonskopf/Flatearthsociety.htm

I always maintain a skeptical mindset, Grendel. One of the pre-requisites of skepticism means having a good working bullsh1t filter.  

Being unbiased is not necessarily a scientific requirement when it comes to being biased against that which can clearly be shown to be nonsense.

Yes, I'm biased. If somebody is obviously lying, I have a natural bias against that person. If somebody is obviously telling convincing lies to the gullible (who vote) then I take issue with it.  

I do have a sense of justice.

PLEASE...  i believe the Earth is an oblate spheroid...  I cant personally prove it but I don't believe there's been a huge conspiracy about it.

That is totally unlike the issue of the complex science involved in climate and climate change.

You think the issue is "settled" yet many people, many scientists...  do not.  I still have an open unbiased, skeptical  mindset about it.  You do not.

Therein lies the difference.

Grendel wrote on Apr 16^th, 2010 at 1:28pm:

PLEASE...  i believe the Earth is an oblate spheroid...  I cant personally prove it but I don't believe there's been a huge conspiracy about it.

How would you prove it, do you think?

Personally..  I can't.

Can you?

Grendel wrote on Apr 16^th, 2010 at 1:41pm:

Personally..  I can't. Can you?

Yes,  it's very basic stuff. I could probably do it with a couple of long sticks, tape measures, spirit levels, and an assistant 1000km away in contact, on a mobile phone.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eratosthenes

I've also played with LEO satellite tracking enough to understand how Keplerian elements work.

I could also measure atmospheric carbon dioxide quite easily and I could measure the infra-red absorbance of Carbon dioxide at 2.7, 4.3 and 15 micrometers. That's pretty basic stuff too.

Maybe that's why you take the view that the Earth is an oblate spheroid on faith, while I can understand the reasoning behind it.

You could say the same thing about Global Warming, I guess.

So basically you are saying on your own without equipment etc  YOU CANT EITHER.

That's ok...  I don't think anyone can.

Oh and BTW sticks wont prove Earth is an OBLATE SPHEROID.  I'd have thought you'd have known that.

As with your faith in Global warming your faith in yourself is way overstated.

Ladies and gentlemen, mark this day in history. For 16 April 2010 shall forever be known as that day that Beo the Great proved that Eratosthenes was wrong. The following enlightened and immortal phrase shall forever be known as Grendel's Maxim: "Oh and BTW sticks wont prove Earth is an OBLATE SPHEROID".

This is a remarkable accomplishment, made all the more remarkable because of the facts that sticks can prove that the Earth is an oblate spheroid, did prove that the Earth is an oblate spheroid, and will continue to prove that the Earth is an oblate spheroid for as long as the sun will cast a shadow.

Asked for an opinion on this outstanding scientific achievement, the late Sir Isaac Newton is reported to have replied, "what a tosser".

Sticks???

They must have edited the post, it clearly said ships, ships I tell you, SHIPPSSSS!

Or

lol, MY Bad.


My bet is on a variation of option one.

Of course it is no big deal, in the sense that most of us make our fair share of blunders, but I have always felt bad about the way that muso was derided at times, for trying to help all of us better understand the AGW issue.

Thanks muso, you have taught me a lot, and I am sure that in time others who now doubt, will come to appreciate the depth of understanding, and the patient explanation of the issue that you shared.

Grendel wrote on Apr 16^th, 2010 at 7:39pm:

So basically you are saying on your own without equipment etc  YOU CANT EITHER.

LOL.

You leave me almost speechless.

But I will grant you that you have a point. If you stick your fingers in your ears, shut your eyes and cover up your mouth then you will hear no evil, see no evil and speak no evil. (though you could probably sh1t some evil)

Apart from that, in such a position, you can't really prove anything. That is perfectly true.

So when you're prepared to emerge from your fetal position sucking your thumb, I'll explain a few things to you.  

Idiots....  honestly...  the only way to prove the Earth is an Oblate Spheroid is to get a rocket and travel far enough away from the Earth to see it in it's entirety or do lots of measurements all over the planet or from satellites...  can I do any of these things?  No.

idiots.

Dont bother talking rot to me or being a disingenuous prick like Muso.

Trigonometry, beo.

Heard of it?

Ok lets see you prove through trigonometry that the Earth is an oblate spheroid.  On your own no satellite data or really long tape measures or assistants.  I'll be really impressed.  ::)

You don't even need sticks, let alone really long ones, and you certainly don't need a satellite. You just need to simultaneously compare, from two sufficiently distant observation points, the angle between the direction of the earth's gravitational force (as in down) and the direction towards the centre of the sun. Precise measurements and basic trigonometry will demonstrate that the results are inconsistent with a sphere, and consistent with an ellipsoid with the dimensions of the Earth.

An even easier way, measure the weight of an object of mass 1 kg at the equator and then again somewhere away from the equator (Melbourne would be good enough). The weights will be different, thus the distances to the centre of the Earth are significantly different. Hence, ellipsoid.

A third way, fire a projectile in a vacuum. Map the path and calculate the distance from the top of the arc to the nearest focus. Then calcuate the distance to the other focus (the other focus is at the centre of the earth). Do it again at a different distance from the equator. You will get a different distance to the centre of the Earth. Thus, ellipsoid.

You need some pretty good gear for the third method, but the first can probably be done with an surveyor's theodolite. The third just needs accurate scales, and adequate protection for the object to ensure it doesn't gain or lose any mass in transit.

The original question was how would I PROVE the Earth was an OBLATE SPHEROID.
Sorry cant do it on my own...  doubt you can either.

You are full of it.

Any waffle to try and recover from an obvious loss.    ::)

At least I was honest enough to admit I couldn't.

The only way you or I are going to convince the average person the Earth is an OBLATE SPHEROID is to hitch a ride with NASA,

Dude, any of the three methods above would be sufficient to define the precise shape of any planet, whether it's a spheroid, triangular prism or a giant pineapple.

You are proposing that it had neven been proven, nor was it known, that the Earth is an OBLATE SPHEROID until the 1950s. The size, shape and dimensions of the earth were well known in Newton's time. By 1798 we even knew it's mass.

Sort of assumed you'd know an oblate spheroid is an ellipsoid.

Quote:

That is totally unlike the issue of the complex science involved in climate and climate change. You think the issue is "settled" yet many people, many scientists...  do not.  I still have an open unbiased, skeptical  mindset about it

LOl open mind LOL LOL  :D :D :D ;D ;D :o :o :o

Dude...you know I'm riight.
I repeat... the question was how would I prove it.  I doubt anyone would believe me without actually seeing it.
I don't think anyone knew the exact shape of the planet till they saw it.

Proving it was "round" or spherical did not prove it's exact shape.  

I don't recall anyone making any such readings prior to the modern era.
If someone had made accurate measurements around the poles and around the equator before then please pass on the details.

Skippy... bugger off. you idiot.

Paella wrote on Apr 18^th, 2010 at 7:45pm:

You don't even need sticks, let alone really long ones, and you certainly don't need a satellite. You just need to simultaneously compare, from two sufficiently distant observation points, the angle between the direction of the earth's gravitational force (as in down) and the direction towards the centre of the sun. Precise measurements and basic trigonometry will demonstrate that the results are inconsistent with a sphere, and consistent with an ellipsoid with the dimensions of the Earth.

Yep. Hence the Spirit level in my original post. You don't need particularly long sticks or a particularly long tape measure either. One from Bunnings will do the trick.  If you want to get technical just use a theodolite (projecting the image of the sun)


Your other methods are perfectly valid.

I brought up the Keplerian elements because if we can track a Low Earth Satellite using Keps, that provides proof of the precise shape of the Earth. I don't see why we should limit ourselves to Stone Age equipment. The allegation was that we couldn't prove that the Earth was an oblate speroid, subsequently amended to - without going into orbit. (You do know that driving in reverse gear so fast can be hazardous?)

Going back to the 15th- 16th Century, Newton's theory of gravitation predicted the Earth to be an oblate ellipsoid with a flattening of 1:230, which is pretty damn close.

Grendel, has it occurred to you that if we didn't know the exact shape of the Earth before the first space probes were launched that they would have probably had some major problems?   ;)

ROTFLMAO

Why do you keep crapping on.
Just admit i was right.

Most people don't own a theodolite, I don't and most people don't know what they do.  

Most people believe what they see and puhlease there is no way you are going to prove to anyone that the EARTH IS AN OBLATE SPHEROID with something bought at Bunnings.

You know as well as I do proving a bit of the Earth is curved is not proving its an oblate spheroid.

Why don't you tell them to look at the curved shadow of the Earth as it crosses the face of the Moon during an eclipse?  Much more convincing...  Wont prove it is an OBLATE SPHEROID still will it.  In fact the Flat Earthers will say that it just shows the Earth is like a circular dinner plate.  That is if they even believe it is the Earth's shadow in the first place.

I'm right on this.  I should know what I can prove dummies.  You should know too.


Quote:

The allegation was that we couldn't prove that the Earth was an oblate spheroid, subsequently amended to - without going into orbit. (You do know that driving in reverse gear so fast can be hazardous?)

Oh and don't lie about what has been said.  ::)

I just read back through the thread beo. Looks pretty good to me. The bit about satellites came in much later.

But anyway ... how then, wiseguy, did it become known well before the 1950s, that the Earth is an ellipsoid?

here's a tip. Try at least googling a topic before you post your ... ummm ... knowledge (?) on it.

Well you are a bigger idiot than I thought you were.

I already posted what the original question was...

::) ::) ::).

BTW the topic isn't about the shape of the Earth...  that was Muso's sidetrack...  pity your comprehension problem is as big as your reading problem.

OK. Let's get back on track. Grendel has clarified the fact that he can't prove that the Earth isn't flat, because despite some of his posts, he's never been in outer space. His technical specialty is in the altogether different field of climatology - and there he knows what's right and wrong just by ....a feeling in his bones.

- After all - it's just the weather.... isn't it?  :P

No, definitely NO, I will not accept that.

He feels it in his 'water'!

Well that would explain the constant groin grabbing at least.

Yes I agree Muso, let's get back on track. Beo can be right. Muso, Paella and Isaac Newton can be wrong.

You guys would be funny if you had half a brain between you.

Too proud to admit you were wrong...  pathetic.

Too egotistical to think anyone else has had an education...

Too dishonest to admit fault or give credence to the truth.

::) ::) ::)

Paella wrote on Apr 20^th, 2010 at 10:00am:

Beo can be right.

Is this too complicated for you beo?

Should I put it in simpler terms? Pick one of the following:

1. You're right, I'm wrong.

2. It is impossible to prove the Earth is an Ellipsoid, sorry ... oblate spheroid. It can't be done, it's never been done.

3. Beo is right. Beo is alsways right.

Can we move on now?

can we move on?  You guys have been incapable of it for so long I almost forgot what the topic actually was...

I accept you half arsed apology.

"Climate Doubt Acknowledge by Alarmists".

We've been through this with soren. I think we got him to understand in the end, but this will be a bigger step up for beo.

Uncertainty is inherent in science. Moreover, there is uncertainty in our ability to observe and comprehend the physical universe. To fail to acknowledge uncertainty is not so much bad science, it is unscientific.

You will not find a scientifically stated conclusion that fails to acknowledge its inherent uncertainty. Generally, the uncertainty in the conclusion is not only stated, it will be quantified. So "Climate Doubt" isn't just acknowledged, it's quantified and published. The above headline is hardly a revelation, merely a misrepresentation.

To confuse scientific consensus with scientific certainty belies that the author either has no understanding of the scientific method, or that he does understand the scientific method and is deliberately attempting to mislead his readers (and given the publication in which the article appeared, this would not be very difficult).

Once again: science cannot absolutely and positively prove anything. It doesn't even lay claim to being able to do so. In fact, science can demonstrate that this is not possible. Science relies on inductive reasoning, so there can always be an undiscovered exception. It is impossible to prove that something does not exist, so it is impossible to prove that an undiscovered exception does not exist.

A scientific consensus means that agreement on the theory is so widespread that the theory can be considered a scientific fact. A scientific fact is a theory that the scientific community is so confident in that it is willing to proceed on the assumption that it is true. It can thereafter be used as a premise. There will always be dissenters, but not enough to deny a consensus. Remember, you can still find qualified scientists who believe that nicotine is not addictive, and others that believe in intelligent design. Roughly, they are about as numerous as the ones that do not accept AGW (and unsurprisingly, there is  a big overlap in ID scientists and denialist scientists).

The level of agreement within the scientific community on global warming (that is, it is occurring and it is caused by human activity) has long had such a degree of widespread support in the scientific community that it can be considered a scientific fact. Some examples of other scientific theories that have been elevated to scientific facts are germ theory (once as controversial as AGW), heat transfer, universal gravitation, relativity, (most of) quantum theory, evolution and yes, even the theory that the earth is an ellipsoid ... sorry, oblate spheroid.

Theoretically, so to speak, if I were to drop a billiard ball on to my desk, it is only a theory that the desk will stop it from falling. It is consistent with the laws of physics that none of the electromagnetic fields in the billiard ball will interact with any of the electromagnetic fields in the desk, and the ball will just pass straight through. But this is very, very improbable. If calculated in terms of "one in x", the x would be greater than the number of atoms in the universe. But it could still happen. So there is a degree of uncertainty in stating "if I drop this ball on my desk, the desk will stop it from falling", even though it can safely be considered a scientific fact that the desk will, indeed, stop the ball.

The tobacco industry successfully exploited the inherent uncertainty of the scientific method for many years. The intelligent design lobby is now trying the same tactic, with considerably less success. The fossil fuel industry is also sending out a lot of dog whistles about "doubt", but they seem to be realising that governments, as well as the general public, are pretty well on to it. Then there are the lunatic fringe denialists, who, like some of the intelligent design crew, actually seem to believe it.

Some people believe strange things. That is a fact.

Well summarised, Paella.

Look you idiots I studied Science, I also studied Chemistry and Physics, I understand "uncertainty" and can even quote Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle (not that I'm a fan of it) or discuss Max Planck or Niels Bohr if you like.

There is no uncertainty in what you believe. Unlike skeptics or people you defame by calling them deniers.  You are a sad lot of hypocrites.


Quote:

A scientific consensus means that agreement on the theory is so widespread that the theory can be considered a scientific fact.

Yes, like; the Earth is flat, the Sun orbits the Earth, Phlogiston theory, Aristotle's dynamic motion, the existence of "Ether" as a medium, classical elemental theory (earth, air, fire and water).


Quote:

A scientific fact is a theory that the scientific community is so confident in that it is willing to proceed on the assumption that it is true.

Which leads us to that old chestnut that when you ASSUME...  YOU make an ASS of U and ME...

We have been trying to say to you lot quite simply that there is dissent and difference of opinion re AGW...  I note you say it is in fact a CONTROVERSIAL.... THEORY.

So then it is NOT A PROVEN FACT?  Really?  Well what do you know.
BTW the theory that EARTH is an OBLATE SPHEROID is NOT a THEORY.  It is a PROVEN FACT.

Yes some people are in denial...  it isn't the skeptics.

Grendel wrote on Apr 21^st, 2010 at 10:53am:

Look you idiots I studied Science, I also studied Chemistry and Physics, I understand "uncertainty" and can even quote Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle (not that I'm a fan of it) or discuss Max Planck or Niels Bohr if you like.

;D ;D ;D

keeping up with the physics of things are we Muso...?  i think not.

;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D

my 10 trumps your 3.

What is an oblate spheroid?
Is it anything like a prolapsed hemorrhoid?

Just explain to me what the Uncertainty Principle means for anything other than quantum mechanics.   ;)

muso wrote on Apr 21^st, 2010 at 12:17pm:

Just explain to me what the Uncertainty Principle means for anything other than quantum mechanics.   ;)

I don't know.

muso wrote on Apr 21^st, 2010 at 12:17pm:

Just explain to me what the Uncertainty Principle means

Not sure...

Ok. (Deep breath) It's always a source of amusement to me when people start talking about the Uncertainty Principle as if it has any connection with scientific uncertainty or it in any way describes the nature of the world. Creationists in particular take great delight in totally misinterpreting it.

The Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle just demonstrates that there is no real way of pinpointing the exact position of a subatomic particle without accepting that its exact motion will remain very unpredictable and not that any uncertainty remains as to the absolute charge/position of the particle.

The Uncertainty Principle refers only to human limitations and not to any real description of the world. The world remains as it has always been - strictly one of unrelenting cause/effect without any exceptions.

It applies strictly to subatomic particles and  along with Schrödinger's wave equation forms the basis of Quantum Mechanics. It enables us to predict, among other things, the frequency and intensity of spectral lines, and energy levels in more complex systems such as the carbon dioxide molecule and confirms observations of the infrared absorption spectrum among other things.

It doesn't apply to the macro world in any shape or form.  It has nothing to do with your train being late, or the typical Schoolboy jokes on exam papers.

As Einstein said "God does not play dice"  ;)

Soren wrote on Apr 21^st, 2010 at 1:16pm:

muso wrote on Apr 21st, 2010 at 12:17pm: Just explain to me what the Uncertainty Principle means Not sure...

Whatch out - joke.  :D
Uncertianty principle - not sure... geddit?





Treat this as an equaliser for my not getting the honey and lettuce for breakfast quip.

Soren wrote on Apr 21^st, 2010 at 5:36pm:

Soren wrote on Apr 21st, 2010 at 1:16pm: muso wrote on Apr 21st, 2010 at 12:17pm: Just explain to me what the Uncertainty Principle means Not sure... Whatch out - joke.  :D Uncertianty principle - not sure... geddit? Treat this as an equaliser for my not getting the honey and lettuce for breakfast quip.

I know it was a joke, and the same applies to Mozzaok. My reply was only directed to the "look you idiots" poster who has apparently had a  you-beaut best-education-money-can-buy in Chemistry and Physics but confuses Scientific Uncertainty with the Uncertainty Principle.

That reverse gear must be getting sticky by now  ;)

Quote:

...the theory that Earth is an oblate spheroid is not a theory. It is a proven fact.

^{I removed the caps, They get tiresome}.

Beo, you need to understand that the two terms are not mutually exclusive. The theory of evolution is also a "proven fact", so to speak. If you are unable to accept that scientific facts are not "known" absolutley and positively, then you really seem to be struggling with science at the conceptual level.

I very much doubt that you have undertaken any serious science study at all.

But what exactly is a "proven fact"? I suspect you are demanding that for a "fact" to be "proven" it needs to be positively proven beyond any doubt at all. I.e., that the probability that it is not absolutley and positively correct is precisely zero.

There are no such proven facts: no one knows anything with 100% certainty. Let's take the theory that the Earth is an oblate spheroid, since it seems to be a favourite:

- Do you know with 100% certainty that there isn't a subtle but mathematically real variation in some part of the surface that can be explained by another or a new scientific theory? Can you prove it?
- Do you know with 100% certainty that on each occasion that instruments have been used to survey the Earth's shape and or size, that the instruments haven't coincidentally malfunctioned? Can you prove it?
- Do you know with 100% certainty that the scientists who have published their findings on the shape of the Earth are not involved in a massive conspiracy to establish world conquest through world government? Can you prove it?
- Do you know with 100% certainty that we haven't all been hypnotised by the flying spaghetti monster to hear "oblate spheroid" whenever someone says "cube" (some of us may hear "ellipsoid, sorry")? Can you prove it?
- Do you know with 100% certainty that your entire life has not been just a dream? Can you prove it?
- Do you know with 100% certainty that the universe actually exists? Can you prove it?

If you can prove any of the above, with 100% certainty of course, I look forward to you publishing the proofs. Let us know.


Quote:

...I studied Science, I also studied Chemistry and Physics, I understand "uncertainty" and can even quote Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle (not that I'm a fan of it) or discuss Max Planck or Niels Bohr if you like.

That's great to hear. Though, for the reasons stated, I doubt any of these studies were at a level beyond high school (and if they were, I don't think you were listening). But let's find out: I suggest we discuss the the absorption of infrared radiation by CO₂. What can your extensive education in the sciences tell us, I wonder?

Oh, and there's quite a difference between being able to quote the Heisenberg uncertainty principle, and actually having some level of comprehension of it.

(on that last point, I don't agree with Muso's summation on a number of points, but that can be for another thread).

thanks fellas for proving you are all egotistical wankers...  excluding Soren of course and Mozz (who is like the little dog in the Looney Toons Cartoons)  "Muso's my friend cause he's so big and stroooong... " ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D

I never said Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle has anything to do with anything... (except perhaps physics)  
never ASSUME MUSO...  but hey that great big EGO of yours assumes everyone else is dumber... right.  ::) ::) ::)

I never even mentioned quantum mechanics, or protons or electrons or any sub atomic particles or packets of energy or wave forms or or or or...  I never said it had anything to do with plus or minus half the smallest measure either or anything except that it contained the word Uncertainty...  I'm sorry if that went straight over your bloated empty heads.

I mentioned it because it contained the word...  Uncertainty...  which Pooella brought up.

BTW I'm not struggling Poobaby...  you are.  I also don't need to knock others down to build myself up.  I don't even worry about such things.  When you and muso grow up perhaps you'll see the idiocy in being like that and change.

As for proof...  I look forward to either of you publishing proof of AGW Theory as the primary driver for climate change.  Or whatever it is you believe.  That will no doubt get you both a Nobel prize.

Stop talking down to me.
Stop assuming I'm dumber than you.
Stop assuming I have had no education.

When everyone smarter than you agrees with you, I might just give you more credence.

muso wrote on Apr 21^st, 2010 at 3:37pm:

Ok. (Deep breath) The Uncertainty Principle refers only to human limitations and not to any real description of the world. The world remains as it has always been - strictly one of unrelenting cause/effect without any exceptions.

Well - kinda-sorta.


There isn't any more 'real description of the world' than the human description. And since at least Kant we also realise that cause/effect and time and a few other categories are not in the world but are part of the way reason and the mind operate (this was philosophy's Copernican revolution).

While subatomic physics will not throw the rail time table into chaos, it does nod towards our serious limitations regarding knowledge of the mind of god. It shows that our formulation of principles/laws ('timetables') is limited, rather than our reading and interpreting of the said timetables, as it were.

So Grendel, does that comprise the sum total of your knowledge of the absorption of infrared radiation by CO₂?

You should have it published!

Does that comprise your sum ability to comprehend?
How unfortunate.

Fight ya bitches ;D

Oh but since you seem so interested in the topic, how about you enlighten us all on your thoughts on this article...

http://nov55.com/ntyg.html

or this one...

http://brneurosci.org/co2.html

hey check out the "uncertainty"...

Quote:

Cold Facts on Global Warming W hat is the contribution of anthropogenic carbon dioxide to global warming? This question has been the subject of many heated arguments, and a great deal of hysteria. In this article, we will consider a simple estimate based on well-accepted facts, that shows that the expected global temperature increase caused by doubling atmospheric carbon dioxide levels is bounded by an upper limit of 1.76±0.27 degrees Celsius. This result contrasts with the results of the IPCC's climate models, whose projections are shown to be unrealistically high. Even though global warming has become mostly an academic concern now that the climate has moved into a cooling phase [24], it's still important to understand what is and is not factual about the climate.

Oh almost forgot...  I know I've mentioned it several times now, but are you aware that CO2 doesn't just absorb radiation?

please helian I'm trying not to fall asleep.  ::)

Now you wouldn't be changing the subject there would you, beo?

No not at all...  I'm waiting for you to turn on your great big grey delco and enlighten me for a change.  :)

Very good beo, I see that you've googled the phrase I asked you to enlighten us on and quoted two of the sites that come up on the first page. Now I would not have thought that someone with your expansive scientific knowledge would need to google infrared absorption of CO₂, but I'm glad you did, because at least now you'll know something about the topic, even if it is from denialists.

As for me enlightening you for a change (a tall order I know, given your apparent mastery of the subject - muso must be envious), but anyway: The saturation theory enunciated on the second site first appeared in the formulation stages of the AGW hypothesis, back in the sixties - or even earlier perhaps. It was raised out of genuine enquiry, by scientists who were more interested in trying to understand absorption rather than gain insights into climatology. The theory was that as the emissions spectra of water vapour and carbon dioxide overlapped, carbon dioxide could only block IR radiation that was already blocked anyway, and would therefore not contribute to the blocking of the Earth's BBR. However, it was soon found that the degree of the overlap was misunderstood and overstated, so that theory died. It was long forgotten, until denialist pseudo-scientists stumbled on it and thought they'd try to give it a bit of a kick start.

Honestly, one of the silliest things about denialist theories is how very simplistic they are. If something as basic as this had any credibility, don't you think genuine researchers would be on to it? To believe otherwise requires one to subscribe to the global scientific conspiracy theory. The posting of those two links suggests to me that you possible do believe in the global scientific conspiracy theory.

You obviously have a penchant for those theories that are not supported by any evidence whatsoever. What's your star sign?

Actually I didn't google that phrase at all.

I am not the one bragging here Pooella...  I told you.
I studied Science, Physics and Chemistry.
BTW I passed all my exams rather well.
I also came first in Engineering Science and another subject and close to that in a few other subjects.  

That is not the point.  It aint a competition.  Even though you keep trying to knock me down to build you up.

So you do realise that CO2 doesn't just absorb radiation don't you? You keep failing to mention that it also radiates heat away from the atmosphere at very high altitudes.  So not only does it trap heat in the lower atmosphere (thank God)... it also has a cooling effect at higher altitudes.  You worked out a way to differentiate between the 2 CO2s?  Or are they one in the same?  So how would cutting emissions work do you think?  Stop the cooling effect?  The warming effect?  Both?  One before the other?  What would the Net result be do you think?  More cooling?  More warming?

Then there are all those questions about man-made CO2 as opposed to "naturally" occuring CO2...  and there's an endless list of questions there...

Then of course in relation to this topic for a change there is the recognition of our climate being a very complex thing and not at all well understood by the scientists making AGW claims but only occassionally admitting that they don't.

Do you believe in Astrology?  how quaint...  why don't you tell me what one you think.

As for conspiracies...  no i'm not a conspiranut.

Just let us know if you want more rope, Grendel.

Paella - I'll accept that you probably have a more current knowledge of Quantum Mechanics than I do.  The last time I visited the subject was at University, some 30 odd years ago.  It only clicked for me when I realised that it was all about probability distribution functions.  I know about Bose Einstein condensates and I know that there are a number of macroscopic implications (such as the fundamental properties of matter). I basically wanted to correct the common misconception that scientific uncertainty and the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle were in any way related.  

Yes I'm sure you did very well at High School, beo. Congratulations! Not that you're bragging, of course.

And yes, I am also aware that CO₂ molecules are somewhat indifferent to the direction of travel of infrared light. I would imagine that they will block a portion of infrared radiation no matter what direction it is going. AND I imagaine that if the blocking of the inbound radiation, whether equal in energy or not to the blocking of the outbound radiation, had the same influence on the energy retained below the troposphere, all would be good (or at least better, anyway).

Otherwise, as per my previous post about ridiculously simplistic scientific arguments coming from denialists. This ones seems to be the AGW version of bacterial flagellum. Actually, it's not even that clever.

Well thanks for that brainiac...  as usual...  no use for anyone.

BTW no bragging involved...  sorry if you didn't do well.

I see Muso has given you that rope you were after.

So you guys choked on your imaginary rope or just run out of empty baseless phrases?

Did you have a question?

Nope...  just waiting for that rare thing they call an on topic comment.

Does anyone have anything constructive to say here? If not, I'll close the thread.

Oh well that would be convenient.

muso wrote on Apr 28^th, 2010 at 4:18pm:

Does anyone have anything constructive to say here? If not, I'll close the thread.

Rudd's a sceptic now. What next?

I think you can safely close the thread. The alarm has run its course up spines until at least 2013. Until then, as you were.

No just till the end of Kyoto...  the alarmists will be back in force long b4 then.